Re: Race and IQ, and the whole messy biology of humanity

That may be true for mice, and it may have been true for early hominids, but it certainly does not hold for modern man. Even as long as 30,000 years ago, outgrowing their territory and resources by reproducing too much has caused problem for mankind. Today, it causes every kind of madness, conflict, hunger, savagery, disease and ultimate disaster. Even in its least demanding examples, this is a high-maintenance species: large, poorly insulated, inefficient digestive system, profligate in water usage; long maturation period. Its optimal social organization is groups of a few hundred - beyond 1000 or so, it invariably becomes fractious; contentious internally and aggressive externally.

To be fit doesn't simply mean to be prolific. If that were the criterion, ants leave all the rest of us in the dust. And intelligence is certainly not a requirement for reproduction. It's an advantage in recognizing new food sources and remembering old ones; it helps in migration and adaptation to different conditions. It also can be hugely advantageous in predicting future conditions; anticipating dangers and difficulties.

In modern times, one of the calculations an intelligent person makes is the cost of viable offspring, compare3d to the available resources. The four most intelligent people I know have no children at all; the fifth had a baby when she was seventeen and gave it up for adoption. That's anecdotal, of course; not evidence - but the statistics would no doubt bear out my observation that the higher intelligence/education/status tiers of modern society have a low birth-rate relative to the lower ones. True, in conservative societies, that's largely due to privilege that the working and peasant classes lack - for example, the ability to circumvent law and religion; the economic means to medical services, etc. But the same unequal distribution of fertility applies in liberal nations, where even the poorest have some reproductive freedom.

Albert Einstein

is not a good example. Outriders, anomalies, freaks, monsters and prodigies are too rare and unaccountable to affect the statistic.

As a species intelligence obviously has increased fitness for humans.

Yes, and no.

In the long term it seems likely that the more intelligent people will be the first to take advantage of genetic engineering, they are also more likely to have planned for and have stockpiled the material to survive the unavoidable natural catastrophes that end most species existence. In the more distance future some may become cyborgs and avoid even the end of the solar system.

Maybe so, but they were not smart enough to avoid causing the catastrophe in the first place - even though it's been glaringly evident. In fact, many immensely destructive courses of action in human history were easily foreseeable, even by an average IQ, and people went right on with them. This compartmentalization, self-contradiction, self-delusion, homicidal frenzy and mass hysteria are also byproducts of the big brain.

The question becomes if it is moral to artificially restrain the more intelligent for egalitarian motives.

What?

The social justice crowd seems to think so

Please demonstrate.

What is fairly evident is that Western Civilization has greatly increased fitness in places like Africa, India and the Americas.

Not all that evident. Seems to me like Europeans laid waste to the continents, looted them, deprived the local people of their cultures, land and resources, replacing those things with European religion, administrations and armies, drew a bunch of arbitrary lines on the map, then played Monopoly with natives as their game pieces. If that's improved fitness - I'd like to know from what previous measurement, on what scale, and for what future conditions.

The questions of morality have become sufficiently complex in the post industrial age that they must be framed not against what is but what will be.

In which case, they cannot be answered from present information and on present ethical principles.

Re: Race and IQ, and the whole messy biology of humanity

The correlation between fitness and IQ is negative, so your observations hold up.

We could question this by asking about how living conditions effect IQ and the number of children people have. Population growth may happen for many reasons. In China we all know about the impact there of the ideas of population control put into implimentation.

Fitness is, I would imagine, more closely correlated to personality traits.

In addition I should point out that offspring of people with higher IQs tend to live longer ... so that may counter balance the fitness aspect.

Wolf -

You can google "biological fitness and intelligence" to see the stats. I would provide link if it wasn't so awkward to do on my phone.

The evolutionary status of intelligence is not clear: It is positively related to various indicators of fitness but negatively to reproductive success as the most important fitness marker.

Intelligence is frequently defined as the ability for problem-solving and adaptation of the individual to the environment (Sternberg & Detterman, 1986). The very definition of intelligence makes it plausible to assume that it can represent adaptation in an evolutionary sense: the trait which can enhance human fitness. Indeed, empirical data showed that intelligence is positively related to various indicators of fitness. Perhaps the most important link could be the one between intelligence and physical health (Gottfredson, & Deary, 2004) as well as longevity (Calvin et al., 2011) because they are important fitness markers...

However, the relations between intelligence and fitness become much more ambiguous when it comes to reproductive success, probably the crucial fitness component (Williams, 1996). Research frequently shows that intelligence is negatively related to fertility, measured by the number of children (e.g. Reeve, Lyerly, & Peach, 2013; Shatz, 2008). If individuals with heightened cognitive abilities have lower number of children, it may lead to a decrease in genetic potential for intelligence across generations in a process called dysgenic fertility (Lynn & Harvey, 2008).

A possible way to explain the negative relation between intelligence and reproductive success comes from life history theory. It represents a theoretical framework aimed at explaining evolutionary trade-offs regarding reproductive strategies (Del Giudice, Gangestad, & Kaplan, 2016). The theory identifies two major reproductive strategies with both costs and benefits regarding fitness. The fast life history strategy is based on early reproduction followed by a large number of offspring and low parental investment, whereas slow or K strategy is related to a later age of reproduction and smaller number of offspring with high parental effort. Since intelligence is robustly related to a higher educational level and socioeconomic success (Strenze, 2007), it is reasonable to assume that individuals with higher intellectual abilities delay reproduction in order to obtain these resources. This would mean that intelligence is a trait related to slow life history strategy (Rushton, 2004). However, when life history is measured psychometrically using self-report inventories instead of biological markers of maturation or reproduction, results show that intelligence is orthogonal to slow life history strategy (Woodley, 2011). This finding implies that intellectual capacities are not markers of either life history strategy, which suggests that the associations between intelligence and life history are heterogeneous in the empirical literature.

Something else for the intelligence discussion:

Typically, children with poor working memory:

• are well-adjusted socially • are reserved in group activities in the classroom, rarely volunteering answers and sometimes not answering direct questions • behave as though they have not paid attention, for example forgetting part or all of instructions or messages, or not seeing tasks through to completion • frequently lose their place in complicated tasks that they may eventually abandon • forget the content of messages and instructions • make poor academic progress during the school years, particularly in the areas of reading and mathematics • are considered by their teachers to have short attention spans and also to be easily distracted.

...

Why some children have poor working memory capacity is not yet well understood. It is, however, known that low working memory is not strongly related to factors relating to the child’s background, such as inadequacies in pre-school experiences or education, or with the quality of social or intellectual stimulation in the home. It seems likely that genes play an important role in the frontal areas of the brain that support working memory.

If you're not sure why I am pointing out the above points, it is to show that in psychometrics great care is taken to delineate between certain trait characteristics. This is precisely why things like "emotional intelligence" are shown to correlation with conscientiousness and IQ, because "emotional intelligence" is not a separate body, it is a combination of other more well delineated aspects of trait characteristics.

This is something of an aside for those interested in personality traits; but there is talk here of certain traits associated with identity issues which are what I am framing "race" as. (also, nice perspective on artistic development and understanding here too - another subject I hope to get into more in the future; currently reading Schiller's ideas about aesthetics and will get to Tolstoy's "What is art?" at a later date too):

Wonder, Creativity, and the Personality of Political Correctness with Jordan Peterson

The most telling comment by Peterson for me in this is right near the start. It is not a case of trying to understand why people don't act like this or that, it is more about trying to understand why we don't all act like this - interesting comments from both professors in terms of conscientiousness and studies with primates.

Re: Race and IQ, and the whole messy biology of humanity

As to the relationship between IQ and evolutionary fitness, while anecdotal, since I don't have kids, I am in an uncomfortable existential position. I don't know how any of my ancestors would have scored. Pretty average would be my guess. But I do know I have more university degrees than any before me. In fact I am pretty sure I have the first university degree in my direct line of descent. Nonetheless I know a pretty glorious gene line will be ending with me. Ancestors of mine were incredibly good flint knappers. Ancestors of mine survived the genetic bottle neck of 70000 years ago and, in fact, I am a direct descendant of mitochondrial Eve. Before that I had ancestors who survived and dodged leopard, hyenas and saber tooth cats armed only with olduwan pebble choppers. And some were mere australopithecines. Before that some were even more lowly dryopithecines. My ancestors even survived the Cretaceous extinction and before that lived for millions of years among dinosaurs. My ancestors even survived the Permean mass extinctions that killed off 90% of the species on earth. In fact my gene line goes right back to the dawn of life in the precambrian! And i, probably the most capable of solving line puzzles on paper,have let that gene line lapse into permanent extinction. Kind of humbling don't you think?

Re: Race and IQ, and the whole messy biology of humanity

Nothing short of a miracle that we're here at all. There is something both insignificant and important about being alive. Something finite and infinite. I'm "proud" and in awe of being alive is the best way I can put it.

We can look far back in time and see how insignificant we are in that respect (which can be scary for us all at some point of contemplation) and in the now of today we're obviously the most significant thing there is (that is the me and now is the item stretching out to my own history whilst blindly, for the most part, stumbling into the future.

Humbling seems to quaint a term when I attempt to stretch my thoughts between these points.

Re: Race and IQ, and the whole messy biology of humanity

Every improbable, miraculous event was inevitable. It happened. Absolutely, 100%.Every one of us that's here now are the survivors of all the odds against our survival, or the fittest, or the luckiest, or the chosen or the fated. However you spin it, that's just what happened - nobody gets credit for being born.

Forest_Dump is hereby added to my store of anecdotal evidence that the most intelligent are the least reproductive. I not-so-humbly add myself and SO to that list (now numbering eight) of high, but not freaky, IQ's who have chosen to refrain from throwing our DNA into the human gene-ocean. This trend - that the majority of reproduction takes place in the less educated classes - has been in effect for provably 200 years (my guess is, since the onset of civilization), and yet the general IQ level keeps rising. How can that be, when the presumed "best" keep taking themselves out of contention? If you did that with horse-breeding for 10 generations, you'd have no racing stock left. You'd have a breed of bad-tempered, hardy mustangs.

I don't see how any study correlating intelligence with reproduction can possibly overlook the break between natural selection and civilized social structure. By civilization, I mean settled, regulated, city-based societies; people who build stone walls and change the environment to their own needs, rather than adapt to it. In nature, and in small tribes that live close to nature, the requirements for survival are quite different from the requirements of walled societies. The minute history starts being recorded, reproduction stops being natural. Once you have stratified and specialized a society, its members are no longer free to select their roles or their mates - females least of all. Rigid institutional lines are drawn and sometimes brutally enforced. The elite need low numbers (for a minimum of internecine conflict) and long lives to consolidate power and administer the now-complex organization, while the economy requires numerous strong young workers and the nation's security needs numerous strong young soldiers. Therefore, the lower classes are encouraged to be prolific and short-lived. Old viziers are a useful source of information and experience to the next generation of rulers; old miners and soldiers are just a burden on their families.

To this end, there can be no better tool than religion.Factor in the RC doctrine of clerical celibacy. For 2000 years, the brightest boys of European lower classes were taken out of the gene pool, while the most unregulated reproducing was done by illiterate, aggressive soldiers. I believe something very similar happened in Asia.

And yet, the average, the general and the overall IQ rates do not decline! You'd almost think intelligence is a product of healthy large brains, regardless of specific breeding.

Re: Race and IQ, and the whole messy biology of humanity

I don't see how any study correlating intelligence with reproduction can possibly overlook the break between natural selection and civilized social structure.

They noted the limitations of the study in the paper. Plus, they are hardly likely to speculate about prehistoric man in a study of modern people.

The concluding remarks were:

The association between a given trait and fitness represents a potential window into its evolutionary relevance and status. If significant relations are found, then the trait is possibly affected by natural selection. Empirical data on the link between intelligence and fitness are inconsistent. Intelligence is positively related to various fitness indicators, but it has negative associations with the most important fitness marker—reproductive success. The present findings have the potential to reconcile previous data by measuring lifetime reproductive success and age at first birth. Results confirmed that more intelligent individuals delay reproduction in order to obtain resources like education, but this does not decrease their short-term reproductive success. In fact, they have a higher number of children. However, their long-term reproductive success is reduced ...

You say this:

This trend - that the majority of reproduction takes place in the less educated classes - has been in effect for provably 200 years (my guess is, since the onset of civilization), and yet the general IQ level keeps rising.How can that be, when the presumed "best" keep taking themselves out of contention? If you did that with horse-breeding for 10 generations, you'd have no racing stock left. You'd have a breed of bad-tempered, hardy mustangs.

Nutrition, technology and education has allowed us to flourish, so intelligence has not kept rising. General health and infant mortality are other issues in terms of higher numbers of children.

Saying something is "provably" so would require evidence rather than assumption or speculation. Anyway, the premise that IQ is rising is a flawed assumption. I think the analogy of humans becoming better marksmen was a good one. Just because we've improved the tools of marksmanship from the musket to the modern rifle doesn't mean we've suddenly improved in our innate ability to hit a target.

But 99.9% of evolution took place in prehistory. Studying human "evolution" only the last tiny fragment of time is as silly as studying "natural selection" only in the unnatural environments. If they could make a documented comparison between urban westerners and South American native tribes in the wild, it might mean something.

The very meaning of the word "fitness" is as radically changed by the conditions of each particular civilization as is the meaning of "selection" - indeed, "natural" becomes an oxymoron. In prehistory, high fertility was usually an asset; in urban industrial modernity, it is usually an impediment. In the jungle, a keen sense of smell is valuable, while in an industrial slum it's a handicap.

[This trend - that the majority of reproduction takes place in the less educated classes - has been in effect for provably 200 years ]Saying something is "provably" so would require evidence rather than assumption or speculation.

Check the statistics. I said provalby 200 years because that's roughly the period for which accurate census records are available. The conjecture part goes back 5000 years, but is based on recorded chronicles.

Anyway, the premise that IQ is rising is a flawed assumption.

Maybe, but it's a widespread one. http://www.apa.org/monitor/2013/03/smarter.aspx It says more about the testing methods and teaching methods than intelligence. I did, several times, make the distinction between mental ability and IQ test scores.

My point is that human intelligence hasn't been bred out over time, even though the top 20 percentile contributes significantly less to the gene-pool than the bottom 20 percentile. My conclusions are:- that higher intelligence is not a central issue in human reproductive competition - that innate intelligence is not a dominant genetic trait

My inference from the above is that, in a controlled environment where all external factors were equal, the same range of intelligence would occur in all human populations, at any point in history and prehistory. That, while the big brain common to all hominids is a major contributing factor in species survival, individuals with higher than average intelligence may have individual, situational advantage, but they do not have increased reproductive fitness*; may play an episodic role in the survival of their clan, but do not contribute substantially to the viability of the species.

* quick verification: in a high-school population (that is, concentrated humankind at its most fertile) which males appeal to the most females: captain of the football team, lead singer of the rock band, editor of the yearbook, or winner of the physics scholarship?

Re: Race and IQ, and the whole messy biology of humanity

by wolfhnd on April 2nd, 2018, 6:22 pm

Fitness has a strict definition in evolutionary biology that we seem to have ignored. That is a subject for another discussion.

Like every other trait the advantages of intelligence is dependent on the environment. As I stated earlier from the genes point of view the environment is stochastic. That however is not our point of view. With the advent of complex culture the changes in the environment are no longer completely random from a genetics point of view because we manipulate the environment consciously. You could argue that culture is not conscious but that is splitting hairs. The culture we create may not be a conscious act to a large extent but even small changes can have dramatic effects which in many ways is the story of evolution. The trajectory of our evolution, which is both genetic and cultural, seems fairly clear. If we don't destroy ourselves in the short term we will not only have extensive control over the external environment but our genes as well. To reach that end requires a great deal of technical ability that you will not find in people with IQs under 130 or more likely 140. Those people are less than 2 percent of the population but are critical to the long term survival of the species. It really doesn't matter if they all reproduce or not because of the nature of genetics and the return to the norm. That said IQ is highly heritable so it is in all are interests that people with high IQs reproduce. If only low IQ people reproduce we will not get past the current situation where technology is at once the source of a high standard of living and a threat to our long term survival. There will be catastrophic natural disasters that will wipe out most of humanity at some point which can only be mitigated by technology.

It is not racist to point out that immigration is not flowing from countries with relatively high IQ to places with low IQ. Nor is it racist to point out that infant mortality, starvation and disease were the major restraints on population growth prior to the spread of technology. It also isn't racist to point out that absolute poverty is being reduced at an amazing rate world wide because of technology, economic development and free markets (capitalism). In 1820, 75% of humanity lived on less than a dollar a day, while in 2001, only about 20% did. In the last 20 years it has become evident that redistribution is less effective at reducing poverty than economic growth and the meritocracy. In developed nations redistribution has produced permanent underclasses and pockets of crime and misery even if absolute poverty has been eliminated. This is true to such an extent that a new term had to be invented to describe the situation, relative poverty. The point is that establishing equity is not effective at reducing misery. As it relates to this discussion having a high IQ populations is only beneficial if artificial restrains are not placed on merit which is the opposite of racism.

That we can have this discussion is perhaps a sign of encouragement. Identity politics and diversity histeria have not reached every corner of the internet and suppressed honest and merit based discussion. That said I really have little interest in the race and IQ discussion. That discussion is a distraction from the larger issue of class and IQ in which people of different intellectual abilities are increasingly being segregated economically, politically, culturally, and geographically. It is pure bigotry that separates those unaffected by the decrease in opportunity for those with less intellectual ability from the emerging academic, bureaucratic, technological, and cultural elites. For example environmental, immigration, infrastructure and other important policy issues are being decided by those unaffected by the immediate consequences of their decision.

In that case, it has no present application to humans. We have undergone no discernible biological change within recorded history.

.... With the advent of complex culture the changes in the environment are no longer completely random from a genetics point of view because we manipulate the environment consciously.

We also manipulate human reproduction. Nature and Evolution are no longer relevant.

If we don't destroy ourselves in the short term we will not only have extensive control over the external environment but our genes as well.

It is technology, not least, the technologies that serve the demand for human overpopulation, that brings about destruction.

To reach that end requires a great deal of technical ability that you will not find in people with IQs under 130 or more likely 140.

What do you mean by "that end"? Is that end a desirable destination or an unfortunate denoument? Either way, to reach that point, the vast majority of humanity must get out of the way. They're unlikely to do so voluntarily.

IQ is highly heritable

That has yet to be established. The assertion is often enough repeated, perhaps because successful smart people give their [few, late-life] offspring every advantage in intellectual achievement. Plus, that IQ is measured in the natural habitat of the academic, according the standard metrics of the academic.

so it is in all are interests that people with high IQs reproduce.

How is in anyone's interest? The dead won't care who survives. The living have never cared enough to improve the strain. Eugenics was only ever attempted by a few isolated crackpots; never, to my knowledge, substantially supported by any society. What will change? And even if it mattered to the species, how would they convince the gifted to multiply? They're far more inclined to opt out.

(Anecdotally, the three highest scorers on IQ tests I know personally are a truck driver, a bank teller and a psychiatric patient. The last one doesn't count, because his results were beyond the standard scale: c 190. The other two scored 152 and 150, married each other and lived in happy obscurity with dogs and no children.)

If only low IQ people reproduce we will not get past the current situation where technology is at once the source of a high standard of living and a threat to our long term survival. There will be catastrophic natural disasters that will wipe out most of humanity at some point which can only be mitigated by technology.

They can't be mitigated by technology, and they're not all natural. The very brightest members of humanity have contributed the global catastrophe, just as they contributed to each of the local catastrophes that brought down previous civilizations.

It is not racist to point out that immigration is not flowing from countries with relatively high IQ to places with low IQ.

It may not be racist, but it's inaccurate. The US, Canada and UK have gained a treasure-trove of intellect and technical expertise from Asia and elsewhere. Of course, that's partly due to selective admission. I'm going to skip the history, because... let's say it's not strictly relevant.

As it relates to this discussion having a high IQ populations is only beneficial if artificial restrains are not placed on merit which is the opposite of racism.

That's the second mention of this problem, of which I am wholly ignorant. In what way, where and by whom are artificial restraints placed on intellectual merit?

For example environmental, immigration, infrastructure and other important policy issues are being decided by those unaffected by the immediate consequences of their decision.

That's a concise definition of all civilized political power and decision-making.

Re: Race and IQ, and the whole messy biology of humanity

Check the statistics. I said provalby 200 years because that's roughly the period for which accurate census records are available. The conjecture part goes back 5000 years, but is based on recorded chronicles.

I cannot take you seriously if you're counter argument is "Check the statistics." In order for me to check them you need to provide them.

Maybe, but it's a widespread one. http://www.apa.org/monitor/2013/03/smarter.aspx It says more about the testing methods and teaching methods than intelligence. I did, several times, make the distinction between mental ability and IQ test scores.

I asked about this several pages back and provided links. I also referred to this in the post you're replying to??

My point is that human intelligence hasn't been bred out over time, even though the top 20 percentile contributes significantly less to the gene-pool than the bottom 20 percentile. My conclusions are:- that higher intelligence is not a central issue in human reproductive competition - that innate intelligence is not a dominant genetic trait

Hard to know where to start here ... biological inheritance is a probabilistic calculation. We have very strong evidence for relating genetics to intelligence and I have pointed out the studies done into identical twins that show this. It is contrary to admit (as you have elsewhere) that intelligence is likely due to several different genes and then say intelligence is not innate.

Based on mostly opinion and anecdotal evidence it seems. And you call the study "silly" when it is openly stating its limitations and you make unfounded sweeping statements. Your opinion doesn't even appear to be informed - regardless of whether or not your conclusion is correct, it is essentially faulty because your arriving at your answer for all the wrong reasons.

All people, in your experience, with high IQs have no children and drive trucks ... that is hardly scientific evidence. Plus there is no consideration of personality traits to account for such life choices.

We also manipulate human reproduction. Nature and Evolution are no longer relevant.

No comment needed. Simply reread what you write and provide your own critique from now on.

Wolf -

If only low IQ people reproduce we will not get past the current situation where technology is at once the source of a high standard of living and a threat to our long term survival. There will be catastrophic natural disasters that will wipe out most of humanity at some point which can only be mitigated by technology.

There is no evidence for this either. This is mere conjecture. For starters one of the main reasons I made this thread was to point out that one generation may have intelligence inhibited by the conditions of prenatal development - this could even lead into a vicious cycle in some extreme cases.

There is very little in the way of personality being taken into account. There is also the issue of women wanting to mate with men who are high achievers. Any technological advance can be put to good use or bad use. In some cases the tech is the cause of the disaster.

Re: Race and IQ, and the whole messy biology of humanity

by wolfhnd on April 2nd, 2018, 10:26 pm

The fact that a major natural disaster will take place affecting the entire planet is not conjecture nor is what will be needed to mitigate the consequences. Once you acknowledge that IQ is at least somewhat dependent on genetics the other conclusions follow but I don't care to argue the point. What I'm arguing against is the folly of equality in some absolute sense and arguing for the fairness and universal benefit of a meritocracy. The fact that IQ may not measure intelligence in some abstract sense is irrelevant to the effect that IQ has on advancing technology that will likely not only improve the lives of all people but save the species in the long run.

The subtle issue here as I tried to point out is what it means to care about people. Do you care only about people who are alive today or those that are alive today and those that will be alive in the future. Short term solutions tend to cause long term problems. If nothing else I would think we could agree that a large part of what distinguishes humans from other animals is the ability to plan for the future and by doing so reduce unnecessary suffering. In the past it was accepted wisdom that giving a man a fish was a less desirable solution than teaching him to fish.

There is a real danger that shallow empathy causes more harm than good resulting in treating people as infants to be protected instead of adults who can contribute to the long term welfare of not only themselves but the wider community. People of all IQ levels are due respect not based on their proportional contribution but on their commitment to civilization. Respect should not entail any notion of equality of outcome because such ideas have repeatedly proven to be counterproductive to the general welfare.

I'm probably done responding here because I don't see any progress toward and understanding we will agree on. It is nice to have a conversation but sometimes you have to let things forment for a while and come back to them later.

All of them? I think not. You need to do some of your learning elsewhere.

I asked about this several pages back and provided links. I also referred to this in the post you're replying to??

"This" being the assumption that IQ scores have been rising since 1900? I don't think that's been disproved. In any case, it's not vital. They could have stayed the same. I've seen no indication of a decline.

[- that higher intelligence is not a central issue in human reproductive competition - that innate intelligence is not a dominant genetic trait]

Hard to know where to start here

Start by reading what's written. Doesn't say intelligence is not innate; says it doesn't help you catch a mate, and once you've caught a mate, you might have bright kids, even if both of you are only average.

and you the study "silly" when it is openly stating its limitations and you make unfounded sweeping statements.

Which one? That evolution started 3 billion years before recorded history? Or that urban, stratified civilization changed the rules of natural selection? Or that you need different skills in hunting and gathering than in technological hierarchies?

Your opinion doesn't even appear to be informed - regardless of whether or not your conclusion is correct, it is essentially faulty because your arriving at your answer for all the wrong reasons.

Guess I should have got my education from videos instead. Oh well. I tried.

Re: Race and IQ, and the whole messy biology of humanity

I have no idea where you've gotten your "education" from or your information. You've provided practically nill other than opinion and personal stories.

I am not asking for all of the data, merely some of it.

We could perhaps talk about the apparent "rise" in IQ. I do remember Hyksos pointing out that it is a standardized test. I did provide a couple of snippets from Pinker and the other guy (in TEDtalk) about the faulty assumption of humans becoming more intelligent simply due to comparisons of IQ tests from the 1970's and now. It is something I found interesting so we can go into that if you'd like to.

The equivalent would be to test people's understanding of Shakespearian English today compared to Shakespeare's time and conclude today our understanding of the English language has deteriorated. I imagine you can see the flaw in that easily enough.

- that higher intelligence is not a central issue in human reproductive competition - that innate intelligence is not a dominant genetic trait]

Hard to know where to start here

Start by reading what's written. Doesn't say intelligence is not innate; says it doesn't help you catch a mate, and once you've caught a mate, you might have bright kids, even if both of you are only average.

My mistake. In my defense I assumed they were two separate points so I misread the second. I do find the terminology a little confusing at times. If you can clarify the distinction between the two points I would be very grateful (hopefully it will help me understand the distinction.)

Food for thought:

The evolutionary biological hypothesis that culturally defined values and goals are proximate means of enhancing reproductive success is tested on data from the Mukogodo, a small group of Maa‐speaking pastoralists in north‐central Kenya who value the accumulation of livestock. The results support the prediction that, at least among males, livestock wealth should correlate with reproductive success. This correlation appears to be due mainly to greater polygyny among wealthier men. Lower age at first marriage among wealthier men may also contribute to the correlation between livestock wealth and reproductive success. The association between livestock wealth and reproductive success does not appear to be due to the productivity of wives and children, to bridewealths obtained when daughters marry, or to the effects of wealth on the reproductive success of men's wives.

I think, like you say, to ignore the social conditions would be silly. In the kind of lives we live IQ is the best predictor of wealth and success. That is not to say everyone with higher IQs will rise to the top because we're talking about ONE factor here (hence why I continually bring up personality traits.)

and you the study "silly" when it is openly stating its limitations and you make unfounded sweeping statements.

Which one? That evolution started 3 billion years before recorded history? Or that urban, stratified civilization changed the rules of natural selection? Or that you need different skills in hunting and gathering than in technological hierarchies?

Take into account the context of the study. It was a study of around 190 people in their 60's. It failed to account for later childbirth and grandchildren for the longer term. It is a small isolated sample and is not meant to account for the span of human history or beyond, in fact it only covers the reproductive lifespan of the individuals in the study (on whom the data is limited.) With these kinds of studies the aim is to open up a small slither of the picture for analysis not make sweeping statements about the course of all human evolution. Yet it does allow us a peek in order to provide new questions as to the limit of the study, and what it can and cannot shed light on.

Guess I should have got my education from videos instead. Oh well. I tried.

You tried? Where? I have no idea about your background and I don't much care to know. I would suggest you provide more to so I can distinguish between your considered and unconsidered opinion.

Take a look back over this thread. You say one thing and I provide evidence, then you ask the same question because you deny the evidence (or simply don't look at it.) This went on for a few pages when I was looking at prenatal development.

I believe I have provided some context to what I've said whereas I haven't found much from you. I hope you can at least set me straight about what you meant by "genetic trait" because to me it appears, when I read more carefully, you've paraphrased yourself, making one point twice? I assume I am mistaken.

I would agree that intelligence is not the only factor and that it is likely not altogether that important in mate selection (unless you're a woman.) And then we can open up things to comparisons with other primates, human females being the only one's who seem to actively hide their sexual reproductive peak (but I am suspicious of this conclusion because I think that there are unconscious prompts from body posture and other sensory factors, like smell.) Bonobo females don't care who they mate with, human females are much more fussy and in a position to select their partners - they go for dominance and status, which does play into intelligence, especially so in todays world. I would suggest that low neuroticism is likely a better indicator for fitness, yet in contradiction to this we'd be foolish not to consider the intrasexual and intersexual selection, and then there is the issue of extroversion. Generally speaking the more neurotic individuals will be served better by eliminating competition rather than directly competing with them (these would be the so-called "jocks" I believe, as a US pop-culture reference.) How much cognitive strategy plays a part in this is another dynamic to consider.

How we weigh these things against each other is a very tricky business. Often we have to say it looks like this is like this because of a,b and c, but we don't know how to measure for d so we cannot conclude anything definitively/directly. In the case of fitness and intelligence we can remark that intelligence has an indirect effect due to social selection (females generally mate across and up the hierarchy - and be sure to understand this as a GENERAL pattern not one that takes into account all women and all personality traits.)

Although the heritability of IQ for adults is between 58% and 77%,[5] (with some more-recent estimates as high as 80%[6] and 86%[7]) genome-wide association studies have so far identified only 20%-50% of the genetic variation that contributes to heritability

Do you understand what this is saying. To clarify the heritability is about the variance so to say we'd expect the world to be flooded with low IQ people by now is essentially nonsense because at best, given current data, it is a 50-50 situation, but more likely in favour of environmental variance than what gene are inherited (the difference between "heritability" and "inheritance" is likely the most obtuse and ridiculously silly terminological contraption of modern genetics which no doubt does nothing other than fuel those willing to push any agenda they wish - this is something scientists need to clarify to the public because generally people assume the data says one thing when it is fact says the exact opposite.

Fertility is dropping and equality is rising (in terms of wealth and education), what does this mean to the average IQ? How does this play into IQ when we consider the child mortality and nutrition?

The rise in IQ test scores (compared to decades ago on same tests) is insignificant other than in showing that the world has changed.

How this plays into biological fitness? The jury is out. On the one hand we have mate selection related to success and on the other we have fertility rates and child mortality adding to the complexity (not to mention the variance of epigenetic factors (Lamarkian ideas of environmental influence on genetic heritablility.)

Re: Race and IQ, and the whole messy biology of humanity

Look. I'm not concerned about the validity of your study. I'm sure it's fine within its limitations, which shed no light on evolution. P1 - Rich guys in Africa get more wives than poor ones. P2 - In technological America. a smart guy is more likely to become rich than a stupid one.C -- Therefore intelligence is a reproductive advantage.

I say it's not. I say that smart guys in America do not get more girls than dumb guys. I say that a dumb herdsman may inherit more cattle than a smart one and get more wives. Intelligence has very little to do with the reproductive advantage of wealth.

Whether IQ scores have improved or not, intelligence has not deteriorated over the last century.Even though the lowest income classes reproduce noticeably more than the higher income classes. I thought that was general knowledge and didn't need a citation. So, if the sum of human intelligence hasn't gone down due to the low gene contribution of high earners, where is new intelligence coming from? It must be hiding the the general gene pool, either as a recessive characteristic or associated with other characteristics that have sex appeal. This doesn't need a citation: it's observable in everyday life. That's why I suggested the thought experiment of the high-school population.

I say exceptional intelligence is a temporary advantage to the individuals, while general level intelligence is a constant advantage to the species, but exceptional intelligence does not greatly affect the species at large. That doesn't need a citation because it's a conclusion from propositions presented.

Surely we can follow a simple line of reasoning without wasting time on jumping back and forth to sources - which, in any case, are not necessarily all trustworthy or relevant, and which may themselves become issues of contention, which derails the subject. I'm willing to go along with this proving-every-statment-with-a-link culture to some extent, but not to replace a lifetime's accumulated knowledge with a half dozen trendy sites, nor to look up and reference every book on my shelves, when all you need to do for verification is check the real world.

It's a question of approach. If our approaches are incompatible, that's nobody's fault.

Last edited by Serpent on April 3rd, 2018, 10:50 am, edited 1 time in total.

Anyway, I would really appreciate it if you could clarify the business about genetic traits. I could learn something here as I often find myself wrestling with the technical jargon of genetics.

Physical traits are easy to trace by experiment and by DNA analysis. Mental ones, not so much.Intelligence, even in its tightest definition, has so many different components that it can't reside in a single chromosome and be passed on like brown eyes or haemophelia. It does appear to have a genetic component, probably more than one, but it's not that easy to trace. Most of what we know comes from observation and psychological testing, all of which are3 subjective and necessarily limited in scope. Each one may have a little bit of the answer, but The Answer is still a long way off.So we have only the information gathered from real-world observations.If you don't trust them, you'll have to wait for more definitive studies.

Re: Race and IQ, and the whole messy biology of humanity

My apologies, maybe I wasn't clear. I was asking about this regarding evidence:

I said provalby 200 years because that's roughly the period for which accurate census records are available.

Is this actually the case when we take into account mortality rates and grandchildren? Of course is seems reasonable, but I am just wary about accepting things because they seem reasonable. We humans have a habit of accepting appearances as truths. This is an especially messy subject matter so I am not willing to adhere to what appears to be a reasonable assumption especially when I don't know the figures nor what they do or don't account for (there is always a limited reach in these areas.)

Maybe you're correct. Maybe in city life intelligence doesn't play a part at all, and it is the goat herders who keep intelligence going whilst city folk become dumber? Maybe every person has enough recessive genes for a genius to appear literally anywhere under any circumstances? Either way intelligence is a good marker for success, but it is far from being a determining single factor.

Do successful and wealthy individuals have more children? I doubt this is the case for those at the top because I imagine they are more obsessed with their work (in order to get to the top) than they are with acquiring a harem with which to copulate and produce a Genghis Khan-like bloodline.

My confusion with traits is due to the craziness of the term "heritability", where environmental manipulation can reduce the variance to 0.0. Like a bee sting allergy in a world where bees have become extinct.

I do accept that education for young women means decreased population growth. I have not seen anything much that counters that other than certain periods where there have been "baby booms" that buck the general trend completely (likely due to existential optimism and not just economic growth.) Then there is the invention of contraception too - something that can still be very hard to come by for many African women today ... see I cannot help myself :) Even if something seems a given I am in the habit of questioning it not because I believe it is untrue, simply because I am interested in what has remained hidden from view by accepting the obvious. I've not even mentioned the role of western attitudes towards sex brought about by our religious history.

Biv -

Have you read it? I've been thinking about getting it, but reviews seem a bit hit and miss - but I am enjoying his Zebra book.

Re: Race and IQ, and the whole messy biology of humanity

I have read studies, BTW, that urban life seems to develop greater intelligence due to its complexity and need for processing greater quantities and types of information. And there's a greater variety of cultural amenities and stimulation. Don't have citation ATM, sorry.

Re: Race and IQ, and the whole messy biology of humanity

BadgerJelly » April 3rd, 2018, 11:31 am wrote:My apologies, maybe I wasn't clear. I was asking about this regarding evidence:[I said provalby 200 years because that's roughly the period for which accurate census records are available.]Is this actually the case when we take into account mortality rates and grandchildren?

Somebody has to do a lot of number-crunching to come up with all the requisite figures, ansd that won't be me. Here's an accessible article http://www.businessinsider.com/sexual-activity-and-birth-rates-in-america-2015-3I would project the same trend through generations, even though I have no ready access to fertility rate graphs for the 19th century. I think we can take it as probable that the the poor had a higher rate of infant and child mortality, and a lower life-expectancy, than the rich. If the top 20% had the same number of children per household as the bottom 20%, you would expect an increase in the number of upper class people, or a dispersion of capital property among the children. But neither of those things happened. The upper classes remained stable, and wealth became more, not less concentrated.

Of course, those figures only tell you the income level. Others have asserted the correlation between intelligence and income. I think that one is more tenuous, harder to prove. We can't tell what the innate intelligence level of 19th century factory workers and navvies may have been, or whether they passed their clever genes on to children destined to break out of their class or die of typhoid in their trundle-beds. At least you can admit that the Catholic monks, nuns and priests who came out of the lower classes were among the most intelligent of those children, and did not pass their genes on. That would be a net loss of intelligence in the bottom 20%. In the top 20%, some of the boys were sent into the priesthood and the army, but not because they were smart, and the girls were mostly married to members of their own class, so they would add no smart genes to the low end. You would expect some gradual loss of intelligence in the general population. But that didn't happen, either. I've got to assume it's coming from somewhere other than simple inheritance.

Maybe you're correct. Maybe in city life intelligence doesn't play a part at all

I didn't say that. There are two different things mixed up here. 1. Intelligence as a measure of fitness,2. Fitness defined as procreation.

I said different aptitudes and skills are needed for living in nature and living in an urban, industrial civilization. Modern IQ tests measure only the second kind. But it's the first kind that was most needed in pre-civilized times, when 99.9% of evolution took place, and that's not measured. So the predictor of success in the industrial world doesn't apply to most of evolution.

I said that there is no measure of intelligence before recorded history, when evolution, relying on natural selection, was in charge.After civilization, natural selection was replaced by class segregation and strict control of women's reproductive function. I said that urban industrial fitness does not compare to natural fitness. The psychometrics of our contemporaries do not apply to our ancestors.

, and it is the goat herders who keep intelligence going whilst city folk become dumber?

No. I said mankind - in spite of the disproportionate reproduction, did not become dumber. General human intelligence remains the same, even when the exceptionally bright take themselves out of the gen-pool. Everybody keeps it going; public education makes it more accessible.

Maybe every person has enough recessive genes for a genius to appear literally anywhere under any circumstances?

Very probably. But as genius is not always recognized or valued, we have no idea how many we waste. We have no idea how many commit suicide or fall into mental illness and addiction. And even so, we have more qualified applicants than openings in medical and law school, and far more applicants than executive or scientific or academic jobs.

Do successful and wealthy individuals have more children?

Not as a rule nowadays. It's easy to have access to birth control now, and upper income women are not forced into marriage, even if they conceive inadvertently: they have access to abortion or adoption. Also, the more educated are less likely to be hampered by religion. Also, higher education takes so much time and effort, they marry later and plan their families. In ancient times, powerful men had more access to slave and bond women, as well as legitimate wives. Common men could also father plenty of uncounted offspring in wars and raids and mundane rape, as well as counted ones on wives who had no choice. None of that says anything about their intelligence or whether they would have been naturally selected if the women did have a choice. This is why evolution breaks down at the point of recorded history.

I do accept that education for young women means decreased population growth.

Education comes along with emancipation. If they can't be legally forced to bear young, they don't do it so much. If they have the opportunity to make something of their lives besides motherhood, they do. The only sensible population control is to empower women, everywhere. That would put us closer to the natural situation where mating was by mutual desire, not a business deal or family duty or an assault.

I have not seen anything much that counters that other than certain periods where there have been "baby booms" that buck the general trend completely (likely due to existential optimism and not just economic growth.)

Usually it's after a big war. Soldiers would come home, longing for normal family life; girls had been lonely and everybody wants to make up for lost time. They used to expect a period of peace and prosperity when a war ended. I guess that's no longer the case: wars now are small, numerous and permanent, if they're declared at all.

I've not even mentioned the role of western attitudes towards sex brought about by our religious history.

I have. It's pernicious. All religion is pernicious, but Christianity and its little brother Islam are the worst.

Re: Race and IQ, and the whole messy biology of humanity

Get back to this tomorrow I think. For now I just want to say I am not suggesting intelligence is a large contributor to fitness, only that it probably plays more of a role under certain circumstances. There is correlation with longevity, but over all being likeable and physically attractive are bigger markers, and it just so happens that healthier people are generally marked out as more attractive - but then we've got cultural influences playing a part here such as in Somoa where fat people are looked upon as being "wealthy" and therefore better choices for reproduction (and likely hip size plays into this.)

It is a mixed up business and you're right to say about the societal changes and attitudes.

I was not defining biological fitness as procreation, but we are talking about adding to the gene pool and passing genes on. Given that I don't spend my time in a sperm bank we can assume we're more than merely chains of genes. The ideas are environemtal factors that live beyond the individual and act upon genes in the future - that is for those who feel like their imprint on the world is too small ;)

Strict Catholics and Rasta's have more children, so there is a spread of genes there. If we look to the animal kingdom we see success for many different reasons - physical force, ability to nurture and such.

When it comes to the modern world people have some strange attitudes - I think they are simply lying to themselves. One is the common "I don't want to bring children into this terrible world" and my counter is simply "then you are precisely the kind of person who should be bring children into the world." Likely it is a convenient lie to avoid responsibility and/or avoid coping with rejection from the opposite sex (more of a male issue than a female one, although homosexuality is also worth noting.)

Re: Race and IQ, and the whole messy biology of humanity

I think it was Wolfhnd who said that here, but it's certainly a wide-spread view, out there. Of course, you can see how being smarter gives one species and advantage over its prey and its competitors. There is also a link between intelligence and omnivorism in life-style - but is there one in biology? I don't know. We see that a general level of intelligence favours one entire species over other whole species, and we extrapolate that individuals, gaining an advantage over other individuals within the species. Indeed, the more intelligent individuals must have had a reproductive advantage in order to raise the general level in the first place - but we don't know whether intelligence was the specific trait selected-for, or part of a group of attributes that made individuals sexually attractive. Anyway, it was Wolfhnd who categorically stated that "fitness" means having the most offspring that survive to reproductive age. I don't accept that strict usage: I look at "fitness" as the optimal adaptation to prevailing conditions. Those arguments - where I've had to preface every statement with "If that's the meaning..." were not directed at you.

only that it probably plays more of a role under certain circumstances.

What I call a situational or individual advantage. Which may be crucial, but not in the reproductive arena.

There is correlation with longevity, but over all being likeable and physically attractive are bigger markers, and it just so happens that healthier people are generally marked out as more attractive

It doesn't just so happen: it's a natural, life-preserving animal response. Of course the bright ones are more able to avoid natural dangers (bombs, not so much) and so remain intact and unscarred. This may mean a longer reproductive life. But the biggest advantage to the flock, or tribe, or pack is accumulation of knowledge. In social species, teaching and learning are key to group success. Communicating knowledge, and taking in second-hand knowledge are activities that physically enhance the brain by forming new connections between stored information packets and speech center neurons and new retrieval pathways. Long lived species have more time to store and share knowledge - they also have a long immature stage, during which their brain is malleable. That doesn't necessarily mean that exceptional intelligence favours the individual in reproduction. Like any other desirable trait, it's attractive only within the normal range. Large breasts are desirable in a female; large muscles are attractive in male - up to a point. In excess, they become grotesque, and off-putting. I think the same happens with intelligence. Beyond the normal, understandable, practical range, it begins to repel other people. Beyond the normal, practical range, it also becomes problematic for the tribe: it may provide a situational advantage; it may percipitate a long-term disaster.

But none of those factors are decisive in the hierarchical civilized world. It doesn't matter if the journeyman machinist is the most sexually attractive male in the entire factory, he's not getting the most mating opportunities - the foreman is, even though he's fat, bald and cross-eyed. It doesn't matter if all the girls in a parochial high-school are mad for the gardener's assistant: he's protestant, and forever off limits. Nature doesn't get much of a say in civilized societies. Most common people don't even have a chance to meet anyone outside their class, occupational niche and geographic neighbourhood. Marry one of the three available girls in your village, or join the army. Marry a boy from the saw-mill or stay a spinster and take care of your old parents and your sister's children. Constrained, unnatural selection has determined most of our modern gene-pool.

When it comes to the modern world people have some strange attitudes - I think they are simply lying to themselves.

They are also constantly lied-to by their leaders. Both deception and self-deception; both illusion and delusion are products of the big brain. The down-side of too much success; inflated self-regard.

One is the common "I don't want to bring children into this terrible world" and my counter is simply "then you are precisely the kind of person who should be bring children into the world."

What do you suppose those children would do for the world? What do you suppose the world would do to those children? How do you imagine the decision comes about? **

Likely it is a convenient lie to avoid responsibility and/or avoid coping with rejection from the opposite sex (more of a male issue than a female one, although homosexuality is also worth noting.)

No, that's not the case in any of the instances I know of. (Yeah, yeah, anecdotal, unfootnoted, invalid. I could tell you my own reasoning, but it doesn't count.) Every one of us was - and some still are - attractive, healthy, talented and in no wise short of libido. Technology and liberal political environments gave us the option to curtail our own fertility. In a different society or time period, we might not have had the luxury of opting out. Men have usually had the option not to marry - a choice of continence, auto- or homoerotic activity, or simply not to acknowledge the byproduct of recreational sex with women. The majority of women still don't. If they had been free to procreate only by choice, we would not have the present --- hugely anti-survival ---- overpopulation. Imagine a world with no surplus children!

Re: Race and IQ, and the whole messy biology of humanity

I said different aptitudes and skills are needed for living in nature and living in an urban, industrial civilization. Modern IQ tests measure only the second kind.

To throw back your own anecdotal evidence back in your face; why is it that not all people of high IQ succeed in life then? The point of IQ is to measure how well people deal with novel experience under a certain degree of pressure.

IQ tests are tailored to marginalize cultural and living conditions. They are limited though. The difference would be in "crystallized" and "fluid" intelligence. Fluid intelligence is not concerned with general knowledge - the direct knowledge of any given society - yet we're pushing it when we consider testing someone who is wholly out of their element (a newly discovered tribe, who'd likely be to distracted and unable to understand instructions for the test.)

Drop several men in a jungle with nothing but a machete - all with equal health and jungle knowledge, but differing intelligence, and you'll find the more intelligent one's will survive once you;ve factored out personality differences ... what is REALLY interesting me is the personality differences because I do believe it is the personality traits that push someone more toward identity politics.

I think it may not be simply a case of ONE end of the spectrum either. I am starting to think it may be that ANY extreme end of personality leads to a drive toward identity crisis, and from there different inclinations will either lead someone toward communalism or toward individuation.

Re: Race and IQ, and the whole messy biology of humanity

Not a very diplomatic phraseology... but never mind. Which anecdotal evidence?

why is it that not all people of high IQ succeed in life then?

I never said they did. It was you who keep insisting that IQ tests are a reliable predictor of success.

The point of IQ is to measure how well people deal with novel experience under a certain degree of pressure.

No, it is not. Novel experiences are in real life, not on paper.IQ tests measure how well they deal with number sequences, word lists, rotating abstract figures and grid puzzles. Pencil-and-paper, school type stuff. If a student does those puzzles moderately well, he'll do office work moderately well, which is executive success. If he does the math parts particularly well, he's university science geek material and he'll do fine in some dead-end research job. If he does particularly well on the verbal and memory tests, he'll be a teacher or social worker. Those are success stories in the modern jobscape.If he does exceptionally on anything, you can't predict whether he'll end up inventing the next gizmo that makes $billions, or drunk on the streets, or running a carpentry shop. A certain point beyond average is beyond the capability of the test.

Drop several men in a jungle with nothing but a machete - all with equal health and jungle knowledge, but differing intelligence, and you'll find the more intelligent one's will survive once you;ve factored out personality differences ... what is REALLY interesting me is the personality differences because I do believe it is the personality traits that push someone more toward identity politics.

I'm willing to posit that the most intelligent will survive, but I don't watch games like Survivor and The Amazing Race, so I have no indication of how true that is. I would imagine that agility, keen hearing, smell, eyesight, fast reflexes and a good sense of direction would be more useful than the ability to recognize whether 114 fits between 96 and 280, or whether the dot goes above or beside the triangle.

You've got three different things in there. How do you "factor out" personality in a survival test?And what have identity politics to do with jungles and machates?

I think it may not be simply a case of ONE end of the spectrum either. I am starting to think it may be that ANY extreme end of personality leads to a drive toward identity crisis, and from there different inclinations will either lead someone toward communalism or toward individuation.

Could be. Then again, the clever men I know are less able to fit into to group activities than the average men and all kinds of women. The clever men are more apt to be outsiders, whether by choice or chance. I don't know everything about their personalities, of course, but they're apt to say the tactless thing, to voice the unpopular opinion, to point out error and misconception. People don't like that.

Re: Race and IQ, and the whole messy biology of humanity

The Big Five are Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Neuroticism, Extroversion and Openness. Look them up and see for yourself. There is some correlation between these and IQ, but it's not a huge correlation. Basically that means your assertion above about the personality of people with high IQ is essentially speculation based on anecodotal evidence and your perception of intelligence (I am guesing you've not sat these people down and tested them yourself.)

Dare I point out that physical health, and faster reflexes coincide with high. It doesn't matter if you say "no, it's not" because you're expressing an opinion and ignoring the point of the distinction between crystallized and fluid intellugence. You can certainly argue about the accuracy of the teet, but to deny what is being meaured is a dead end argument.

I am not likely to reply to your posts here anymore. It has been interesting, thanks.

Re: Race and IQ, and the whole messy biology of humanity

I`m not denying anything about fluid and chrystlline tests. I was referring to IQ tests such I have taken.Whatever a Big Five is (doesn't sound all that scientific, off hand), it's not in the standard IQ test. I know you've gone off on tangents about personality traits and identity and various theories I didn't follow and never pretended to subscribe to, so we may be talking about entirely different tests and entirely different human characteristics, just as we were talking about different definitions of race.

Re: Race and IQ, and the whole messy biology of humanity

Yeah, agreed. I'll go into The Big Five elsewhere. It is scientific, but not an all or nothing science and there are many grey areas that are much better understood today than 100 years ago.

Race can be studied in two ways scientifically. In the psychology of identity and in zoological terms. We're all aware here that within the human race the differences are not pronounced, and my general argument was for Lamarckian views of biological evolution.

The same issue could be argued for the sexes. That is soemthing there is issue with today, and recently topics like "cultural appropriation" have bubbled to the surface showing the dynamics of human psychological patterns in society in regards to identity - which I imagine is wound up tightly in personality traits.